Introducing the Google Chrome OS

Well, it's official. Google will take on Windows, not with some based on Android (which is dumb, and curious, in my opinion), but with yet another OS based on the Chrome browser. Here's the full announcement. The bolded bits are my work, as I think those are the core bits.

It's been an exciting nine months since we launched the Google Chrome browser. Already, over 30 million people use it regularly. We designed Google Chrome for people who live on the web — searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends. However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web. So today, we're announcing a new project that's a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It's our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be.

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we're already talking to partners about the project, and we'll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve.

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We're designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

Google Chrome OS will run on both x86 as well as ARM chips and we are working with multiple OEMs to bring a number of netbooks to market next year. The software architecture is simple — Google Chrome running within a new windowing system on top of a Linux kernel. For application developers, the web is the platform. All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies. And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform.

Google Chrome OS is a new project, separate from Android. Android was designed from the beginning to work across a variety of devices from phones to set-top boxes to netbooks. Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems. While there are areas where Google Chrome OS and Android overlap, we believe choice will drive innovation for the benefit of everyone, including Google.

We hear a lot from our users and their message is clear — computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them. They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files. Even more importantly, they don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates. And any time our users have a better computing experience, Google benefits as well by having happier users who are more likely to spend time on the Internet.

We have a lot of work to do, and we're definitely going to need a lot of help from the open source community to accomplish this vision. We're excited for what's to come and we hope you are too. Stay tuned for more updates in the fall and have a great summer.

Discuss this Article 87

I like Chrome but for very limited online tasks, none of them getting email. Its ugly, lackluster, and featureless. All it is is fast, and when I have a bad connection its very useful. If they have an OS based on Chrome I'm not that interested, certainly nothing for Microsoft or Apple to worry about.

Whats truly interesting (and innovative in my opinion) is that, as with Chrome, Google takes a very low-key approach to helping users do what they want to do. They show the way with their products, and if their innovations are adopted by other competitors (Firefox & IE, for example) it's a OK, as long as the end user benefits.
And...MS is responding (actually preempting):
“Gazelle essentially leverages the existing mechanisms of operating systems and tailors them to the needs of Web applications.”
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3231

The real question this OS raises is - do we need desktop applications anymore?
If not, there really is no need for Windows (and maybe even the mac).
For the time being, maybe the question is a bit more limited - is there enough people out there for whom desktop applications are unnecessary?
I have to say, I'm beginning to wonder whether desktop apps are necessary today for most people, at least for the PC or laptop form factor.

More about Gazelle (Google is like Apple -- everything they do gets press, even when other companies have been doing the same work already):
>>Currently, browsers don’t offer resource management for devices; they do not manage access to devices or provide a consistent, systematic way of allowing access or managing sharing when Web-site principals are contending for the same resource. For example, browser plug-ins handle access to devices such as Webcams, printers, or game accessories. But how the device is accessed and controlled is up to the plug-in author. Furthermore, plug-ins can interact directly with the operating system and are not constrained by the browser’s security policies. Thus it is possible for plug-ins with conflicting policies to access the same device.
In the Gazelle model, the browser-based OS, typically called the browser kernel, protects principals from one another and from the host machine by exclusively managing access to computer resources, enforcing policies, handling interprincipal communications, and providing consistent, systematic access to computing devices.<<
And the biggie:
>>“I would like to see Web applications achieve function and quality parity with desktop apps,” Wang says. “That’s the ultimate goal of this research.”<<
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/gazelle-062909.aspx

"Google Chrome OS is a new project, separate from Android"
"Because we're already talking to partners about the project"
Obviously not to the already existing partners that are investing millions in Android development for netbooks.
"Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS."
"People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up....They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files."
(as long as Google has the same level of access to your data....)
How much speed do they want to bombard you with xxx # of ads anyway?
So long as data is stored in Google's datacenters, security is not going to be an option. Google just wants all of your data because, as you may or may not know already, their revenue stream comes from data collection and advertising. They don't go out of their way to develop these applications for the good of their health or for some philanthropic "web community" project. They're in it to make money. They way they make money is by collecting usage and personal information and selling it to advertisers. The internet will turn into "Newspapers 2.0", and Google will be there, leading the race to clog up the tubes.

"people will briefly hail this as the second coming simply because of the "G" word... and then realize that, at least initially, there will be no compelling reason to use or want it."
Kind of like gOS (initially designed to be a Linux to run Google Apps on Gears), or Android, which is still half-baked, incomplete beta-quality software.

So Google is going to challenge Apple and Microsoft. I didn't anyone had the cajones. (Huge grin.) Since Apple won't lower their prices or fix their security issues, Cannonical doesn't make the necessary changes to make Ubuntu a prime time player, and Microsoft screwed up with Windows 7 prices while beating a dead horse with XP, its time to put my money where my mouth is.
I've always said someone needs to challenge all three companies, and I'm more inclined to help Google than to allow the status quo between both companies. I've been waiting for someone to step up and Google has not disappointed me.
So I'm going to throw my hat into this. Whatever beta or whatever is going on, I want to be apart of it. If they can build a better Linux that ready to challenge both OSes, I want them to try. Its clear that Cannonical makes good strides with Ubuntu, but they clearly aren't going far enough. So, Google, I'm with you. Lets see what you can do. Maybe if Microsoft, Cannonical, and Apple each get a kick in the balls, the insanity of high OS prices, lack of interoperability, and even higher hardware prices will finally come to an end. All the incompatibilities between the three OSes might also come to an end.
With technology getting cheaper and cheaper, if this is a free OS with the Google touch, shaking up OS world like a Google version of Celestial Being would be a pleasure. So I for one am going to commit to this new Google Chrome OS. I've been living in the fringe with Windows 7, lets see what the new kids can do.
Paul, thank you so much. Kudos for passing this on. I wonder how many Windows, Apple, and Cannonical fans will follow suit? They've shown competence with the browser, so game on!

How exactly is this really a new OS? It's simply Linux with Chrome accessing Google websites. I can do that now running Ubuntu with Chrome - or better yet, Windows 7 with Chrome - or better yet, Windows 7 with Firefox. Wait... I am doing that now.
It sounds like the Chrome OS is only special (and minimally so) if you have a netbook that is always online. If for some reason you can't be online then you are screwed and you basically have an open-source brick in your hands.
I'm glad Google is doing this - competition is always welcome, as is innovation. However, is this really the best that Google could come up with? Chrome running on top of a rebranded, stripped-down Linux? Where's the innovation in that? That's exactly what Asus did with the first Linux-based EEE PCs more than 2 years ago.
Let's face it, Google is only getting huge press with this announcement because they are Google, not because this is any kind of ground breaking innovation. But I hope they do a good job with it because it will only serve to push Microsoft harder to innovate and become more competitive price-wise.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=1065 A very good and sober initial perspective.
Personally, I don't see much difference between this and ExpressGate, which has been shipping with ASUS main boards and products for years now - to no effect.

@BladRnr:
Gumblar affects Google searches.
I bet Google is advertising for websites that serve it too.
Tip: Don't use Google.
LOL!
@sub:
I couldn't tell if that was total sarcasm or not, until I could confirm it with the last sentence:
"They've shown competence with the browser"

It will be a long time before this replaces anything I use.
If all people needed was internet and email, Ubuntu would be huge.
And as someone pointed out, this is just like your normal computer running a browser. Only without any extra functionality. So it's like the computer you're using right now, but not as good.
Ooooooh, futuristic.

Ocean: According to Google's own press release, "The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web."
So it IS simply Linux running Chrome and all the good stuff is in the web-based applications not in the OS itself. Could I not just access those same web apps using Chrome, Firefox, Safari or IE on any other operating system? I really don't see where there is any operating system innovation here.
I do think this announcement would have been a much bigger deal if all Microsoft had for netbooks was the 8 year-old Windows XP and the resource-hogging Windows Vista. Then Microsoft would have been in deep trouble. However, Windows 7 is a great netbook OS - online OR offline.
I'm just disappointed that Google did not really rethink what an OS should be, as they claim. They simply took an existing code-base, tweaked it for their performance needs and slapped their browser on top of it. I really hoped they would completely develop their own revolutionary OS from scratch.

"The real question this OS raises is - do we need desktop applications anymore?"
*snort* That's ridiculous. The answer is a loud and obvious "yes". There's no way in the foreseeable future that you're going to be able to run an application such as FinalCut as a web-based app.
However, for basic word processing, Internet browsing, simple photo management, etc., it's already possible.
"Paul, I thought you banned these jacka$$es"
Clearly not, since you're still here, "waethorn".

@kenmcnamnee: "However, is this really the best that Google could come up with?"
Of course it is the best they could come up with. Can you image the manpower involved in designing a new OS that works with all of the various types of hardware out there? It would be near impossible for Google to design something new when standing on the shoulders of others is so easy.
For me, personally, the desktop and it's apps that run locally are important. I'm not a fan of "the cloud" and it's revolution. It's my uneducated opinion that the desktop as it is today will not fade away, not in business at least.

I dont know.
Google just has a lousy track record in really standing behind their stuff. They always seem to be off onto there next thing before they really refined the old products.
Way too ADD for me.
Maybe a Palm/Google/Ubuntu joint venture OS that ran on old hardware, and didn't try to play like a replacement for Windows or OSX?

Much like the impending year of Linux, the outright replacement of local applications that can take advantage of the full capabilities of the OS is not going to happen any time soon. No doubt, improvements will be made to make it more of a reality, but for the time being, you still need an underlying OS. So I actually agree with lotsa.
And until we actually get reliable and speedy Internet access available to everyone that currently has a computer, the promise of a browser OS will take years and years to pan out. We are no where near that. However, Google has the media in a frenzy, and admittedly, this is a good first foray, although I fail to see how this is so significantly different than Android.
"If not, there really is no need for Windows (and maybe even the mac)."
Why is the Mac any different in this instance? If what you are trying to convey is true, it is actually the other way around, since Windows is usable on a much wider swath of hardware

de Silentio: "It would be near impossible for Google to design something new when standing on the shoulders of others is so easy."
Yes, just like Chrome is based on webkit. All I'm saying is that I'm disappointed that Google has turned out to be just a repackager of other people's good ideas. Personally, I don't look forward to a future in which new software ideas are simply rehashes of existing ones. I had hoped that Google would do something exceptional with a new OS, but really it's just another Linux distro.
"Can you image the manpower involved in designing a new OS that works with all of the various types of hardware out there?"
No, but I'm sure Microsoft can

"How did you get that from the press release? Its just a vision statement, a high level overview. There are no details that backup your statement. "
Simple logic.
Need a quickie OS? Take the Linux kernel, slap a shell on it, and brand it with "custom" wallpaper.
There are 1000s of examples of this in the Linux world.

@Ocean:
From Paul's WinInfo: "It's based on the Linux kernel, Google says, and will feature a new windowing system that runs the Chrome browser"
What I find interesting is that Google isn't claiming that this OS isn't out to compete with Windows, like they did with Chrome.
Last, I don't know the technical differences, but I don't think this OS is comparable to the Gazalle Project that Microsfot is involved with. Gazalle, from what I understand, is a browser that handles resource management, where Google's OS seems to have the Linux Kernal for that.

>>There are 1000s of examples of this in the Linux world.<<
This is something different that 999.9% of those Linux distros. In fact, it sounds like it will be as different from Linux as Mac OS is from BSD.
Pauls article is up. It's full of Apple bashing (no surprise there).

"The final insult comes when you realise those lusers got Gumblar on their systems through a 'drive by download' attack - all they did was visit an infected website. There were no buttons to click - it was all 'automatic'.
And they typically didn't notice a thing."
Once again, Windows is dreadfully insecure."
Dont go to suspect website then.
99% of these types of sites are either porn, warez, or have a .ru at the end of their address. You wont have this happen on cnn.com or Winsupersite.
You can do stuff like this with any OS...IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

cesjr said: "I have to say, I'm beginning to wonder whether desktop apps are necessary today for most people, at least for the PC or laptop form factor."
My company is still using a business system written in 1994 in RBase. I was talking to a supplier yestereday who's company is still on a 1972 IBM Mainframe. You want us to make a jump all the way to Chrome OS, good luck.

@Master,
"Dont go to suspect website then.
99% of these types of sites are either porn, warez, or have a .ru at the end of their address. You wont have this happen on cnn.com or Winsupersite.
You can do stuff like this with any OS...IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT."
Really? Can you give an example of a web site that will infect a Mac? I'd like to see a web site that will do a drive-by download infection of a Mac and I'm willing to be a test case.
Just post the URL.

"Really? Can you give an example of a web site that will infect a Mac? I'd like to see a web site that will do a drive-by download infection of a Mac and I'm willing to be a test case.
Just post the URL."
Oh settle down!
I meant you can infect any platform if the user is stupid enough to allow it.
Now go hug you Mac. Geesh!

Yet another Linux distro? It's it ironic how the Linux people talk in a negative way about the many versions of Windows followed how many version of Linux there are tailored to the mass... Hmm...
I'll give Chrome OS a spin but I'm happy with Windows.

@Master,
Thanks for clarifying. Of course, -any- OS can be infected if the user stupidly types in a password allowing it. WIndows machines can apparently be infected by visiting a web site, which was sure news to me. I'd have to call that bad design, and I still have difficulty believing that it can really happen...

"Paul, I thought you banned these jacka$$es"
"Clearly not, since you're still here, "waethorn"."
And you never fail to show your lack of class. Maybe you should go back and study a bit harder.
@BladRnr:
Your example means nothing. Compiled help files have been depracated by Microsoft and Windows Vista doesn't include support for them.
Likewise, the permission escalation point only applies to Windows XP. Windows Vista doesn't have that issue.

I think Ars nailed it. It sums up my thinking on the matter:
>>All of that would tend to suggest a Chrome OS could wind up occupying a niche. But that may be perfectly fine from Google's perspective. At the moment, Chrome also occupies a relatively small niche, but it has helped change perceptions of what a browser should do in terms of sandboxing processes and isolating plugins. If the Chrome OS can help change consumer perceptions about the utility of online applications and cloud storage, it could be a big success for Google, even without wide adoption. <<
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/07/googles-chrome-os-coming-to-...

@Waethorn,
""WIndows machines can apparently be infected by visiting a web site, which was sure news to me."
So can OS X, which was proven 2 years in a row by CanSecWest."
Same request as I made to Master3: Post a URL that demonstrates this, otherwise it is YATVWNRWE, "Yet Another theoretical vulnerability with no real world example".
Apparently there ARE real world examples of drive-by infections on Windows, the question is whether there is an analogous example that will infect a Mac?

The Ars comments have some interesting takes on this.
>>My take is that there simply won't be any other applications. It's a stripped down driver / kernel / wm stack designed strictly to get the browser up and running. No desktop. No start bar. And so on. You turn on your computer, you're in Chrome.
There'll need to be some device-specific stuff, like configuring networking. That'll be implemented as local web apps, using Gears.
In short, everyone keeps seeing "OS" and thinking Windows / Linux / OSX. Chrome OS simply won't play in that space. If you need Photoshop or cutting-edge games, it won't be the OS for you. If you can do what you need in a browser, from email to productivity apps, it'll be super lightweight, very fast, and very secure (well, as much as web apps are).<<
Ditto this blog post:
>>The clear push from Google to get people on the net shows that Google wants to grow its revenue base by increasing the revenue base of the whole Internet advertising industry (with ~70% market share, is there any other significant way?). This also shows a long-term commitment from Google towards the Internet. <<

"And you never fail to show your lack of class. "
Um...I wasn't the one who used the phrase first, "waethorn". You've been running a master course on classlessness since you first popped your ugly head out of the soil on this site.
"You wont have this happen on cnn.com or Winsupersite."
Don't be so certain. "waethorn" has been known to link to malware in the comments forum, classy person that s/he is.

"If they can build a better Linux that ready to challenge both OSes, I want them to try. Its clear that Cannonical makes good strides with Ubuntu, but they clearly aren't going far enough."
Huh?
Here is the downright truth of it all. Ubuntu is a great OS, especially in its current form. OS X is a great OS, and so is Windows 7.
The KEY difference between them is applications. Its ALL ABOUT the applications.
Windows is king, because there is not ONE single area of work/fun/ or whatever where Windows does not have an application that can do well.
OS X is second, because many Windows apps are also on the OS X, Office, Adobe apps, Quickbooks, etc. Also for some key areas Apple makes some great apps, iLife, and Final Cut are leaders in their respective classes. However in some areas OS X trails, like say CAD programs. AutoCAD for Windows has no equivalent on OS X.
Linux has no commercial applications support, beyond FireFox. Everything is home grown or lags behind commercial apps. This is to be expected since the makers of these applications do it for no money and have no staff and no resources to pull it off. Gimp is ok, but its NOT photoshop. CAD programs, accounting programs etc are just not there. OpenOffice, not bad for free, but its not Office.
So until the majority of applications run from a browser, Ubuntu and Google OS are going to be a second or third choice for the vast majority of computer users.

"And you never fail to show your lack of class. Maybe you should go back and study a bit harder."
That is the irony right there. Weelittlethorn you are as classless as they come. Why dont you just post another link to malware like you did once. Or wait until Steve Jobs is out sick again to make negative comments about him dying. Or better yet give some fine reviews of fast food, and how Rotten Ronnies is so good in Canada.

"Here is the downright truth of it all. Ubuntu is a great OS, especially in its current form. OS X is a great OS, and so is Windows 7.
The KEY difference between them is applications. Its ALL ABOUT the applications."
Spot on. The vast majority of users don't even really know what an "OS" is. The just want the damn computer to WORK.
The people I know who claim to like Windows and who aren't "OS war" advocates as in this forum, basically don't use Windows. They live all day in one or two applications. The apps do what they want and that's that. If anything, Windows is the thing that screws up the operation of their apps and the less they deal with it, the happier they are.
Some Windows apps are clunky and hard to use, especially older ones with that hideous "window in a window thing", whatever it was called. Truly awful. Windows programs tend to be very modal; compare changing IP settings on Windows and OS X. Linux apps tend to be highly inconsistent in user interface, and the "user inteface" sometimes seems like a cruel joke. These are, however, minor points compared to the existence and ubiquity of apps that do whatever it is that the user needs.
You basically make a case for buying a computer and OS that will run the most apps. With OSX you get native versions of most things (Autocad is a good counter-example), you get all the Unix/Linux stuff you care to play with, and you get Windows via Bootcamp, Crossover or VMWare to fill in vertical market apps that OS X doesn't have.
To go back to actually topic, I don't see Google OS as a threat to mainstream operating systems, but I think it will erode Windows at the margins, especially at the low end. It may really be "just another Linux", but it is a Linux with Google's clout and money behind it. That's different, and it will have some success in some areas.

You wanted some examples of live, in the real world Mac malware, then look no further: http://blogs.paretologic.com/malwarediaries/index.php/category/mac-secur...
It does show an important thing, which is very true as it applies to Windows as well. Most malware uses a social engineering aspect to convince the user to run something. I can avoid most malware on even a pre-SP2 XP installation. The Vista kernel, which is so derided in these parts, is actually very secure. The deprecation of CHM files that Wae mentioned in response to BladRnr's ridiculous quoting of a very anti-MS web site, is just one example of the security improvements that MS has made. The most recent media reported exploit in DirectShow is also not valid on Vista.
Users will ALWAYS be your weakest link.
BladRnr is obviously RobertsJoe.

Well, this would be amusing if it weren't so, so, so very old and tired.
What we basically have here is Google pretending that they're creating something by offering yet another Linux but this time with application windows replaced with their Chrome browser so you can't use local apps. Wow.
Every few years some company decides that what personal computer users REALLY want is to give up control of their applications and their data and switch back to a dumb terminal running applications hosted on that company's servers. IBM tried it, SUN tried it a couple of times, Oracle tried it as well, Netscape tried it and now Google wants to try it.
Sometimes the hubris of these "centralized control is a good thing as long as I get to control it" people is so predictable that it's stopped being even amusing.
For that matter, even that ultimate control freak Steve Jobs tried it with the initial iPhone and said nobody needed local apps and developers should all stop asking for a native SDK for the iPhone. But even Jobs had the sense to take one look at the results and run screaming into a 180 degreen turnaround so fast it made the industry wonder what had happened.
One quick way to spot to see how serious Google is about this will be to see how many actual Google senior executives (or even employees) will drop their existing computers and replace them with a stripped down browser-only Linux. If SUN and Oracle and IBM are examples with their "terminals are good for people like you" products, all of them will find a reason why they can't switch yet.
But, hey, perhaps there really is a niche for a subset of the computer users who run Linux who also want less options of what to run on their computers than a Mac user. I figure that's at most 3.5% of 1% of the market...